Cambridgestructuraldesignseminar

1,385 views
1,331 views

Published on

A presentation given to the Structures Research Seminar at Cambridge University Engineering Department, 9 May 2008.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,385
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
84
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Cambridgestructuraldesignseminar

    1. 1. Structural Design in Context, and IT Tools to Support Design Peter Demian Lecturer in Construction Management Department of Civil and Building Engineering Loughborough University
    2. 2. Introduction to Myself <ul><li>Lecturer in Construction Management at Loughborough University since 2005 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interested in Design and Knowledge Management </li></ul></ul><ul><li>PhD in Civil Engineering </li></ul><ul><li>Undergraduate studies in Structural Engineering </li></ul><ul><li>Disability: Poor eyesight </li></ul>
    3. 3. Outline <ul><li>First Principles </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Design”? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Why understanding design is important? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cambridge project – prestressed concrete design </li></ul><ul><li>Stanford project – a tool for design reuse </li></ul><ul><li>Future directions </li></ul>
    4. 4. First Principles: Design 1/2 <ul><li>“ The conception and planning of the artificial” (Buchanan 2000) </li></ul><ul><li>“ The process of developing information about an object that has not previously existed.” (Ullman 1994) </li></ul><ul><li>“ The most essential design activity is the production of a final description of the artefact.” (Cross 1989) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(a description that would enable someone to build the artefact) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Design ≠ construction </li></ul>
    5. 5. First Principles: Design 2/2 <ul><li>Yes, but how are designs generated? </li></ul><ul><li>Rational (or rationalisable) process made up of distinct phases ? </li></ul><ul><li>Rational problem solving? </li></ul><ul><li>Subjective, deeply human experience? </li></ul><ul><li>Social, collaborative activity? </li></ul>
    6. 6. Design: greatest scope for change <ul><li>During the design phase we have the greatest influence over the total final cost of the project </li></ul><ul><li>During the design phase we have the greatest influence over the total final cost of the project </li></ul><ul><li>During the design phase we have the greatest influence over the total final cost of the project </li></ul>
    7. 7. Research Beginnings <ul><li>Part IIB Tripos Project in Cambridge with Dr Chris Burgoyne </li></ul><ul><li>“ Virtual Reality for Prestressed Concrete Bridge Design” </li></ul>Dr Chris Burgoyne
    8. 8. Magnel Diagrams permissible range of 1/ P e-chosen K 2 K 1 e 1/ P
    9. 9. 3D Magnel Diagram
    10. 10. An Interactive Tool for Prestressed Concrete Design
    11. 11. Doctoral Research Stanford University Dr Renate Fruchter Director of PBL Lab at Stanford
    12. 12. Research Problem: Knowledge Life Cycle
    13. 13. Corporate Archives Today
    14. 14. Corporate Archives Today
    15. 15. <ul><li>To </li></ul><ul><li>support </li></ul><ul><li>and </li></ul><ul><li>improve </li></ul><ul><li>the process of design knowledge reuse </li></ul>Research Objective automate
    16. 16. The State of Research on Reuse <ul><li>Reasoning </li></ul><ul><li>Case-based </li></ul><ul><li>Model-based </li></ul><ul><li>(Maher 1997, Pearce et. al. 1992, Luth 1991) </li></ul><ul><li>Representation </li></ul><ul><li>Standard components </li></ul><ul><li>Classification systems </li></ul><ul><li>Design rationale systems </li></ul><ul><li>(Altmeyer et. al. 1996, Baudin et. al. 1993, Maher 1997, Pearce et. al. 1992, Luth 1991) </li></ul><ul><li>Interaction </li></ul><ul><li>Needs: activities, information </li></ul><ul><li>Visualization, metaphors </li></ul><ul><li>Retrieval vs. exploration </li></ul>Cognitive issues (Khalider and Stauffer 1995, Court et. al. 1998, Finger 1998)
    17. 17. <ul><li>Scenario-based design as a </li></ul><ul><li>Research methodology </li></ul><ul><li>Software development method </li></ul><ul><li>Usability Engineering: Scenario-Based Development of Human Computer Interaction by Mary Beth Rosson and John M. Carroll </li></ul>Cooling Tower Scenario
    18. 18. Observed Process (Internal Memory) <ul><li>When a designer reuses design knowledge from his/her internal memory </li></ul><ul><li>He/she can find reusable items </li></ul><ul><li>He/she can understand each reusable item because he/she can remember the item’s </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Project Context </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evolution History </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Design Knowledge Reuse Hypothesis <ul><li>If the designer can: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rapidly find relevant design knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>View this knowledge in context in order to understand its appropriateness, specifically: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Explore the project context </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Explore the evolution history </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Then the process of reuse will be improved and will: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lead to higher quality design solutions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Save time and money </li></ul></ul>
    20. 20. Research Questions <ul><li>INTERNAL REUSE </li></ul><ul><li>How do designer’s find reusable knowledge? </li></ul><ul><li>How do designer’s understand items in context? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the nature of the project context exploration ? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the nature of the evolution history exploration ? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>EXTERNAL REUSE </li></ul><ul><li>What are the requirements? </li></ul><ul><li>HCI metaphors? </li></ul><ul><li>Visualization techniques? </li></ul>
    21. 21. Observed Process (Internal Memory) REUSE Find reusable item Explore evolution history Explore project context KNOWLEDGE
    22. 22. Six Degrees of Exploration REUSE Find reusable item Explore evolution history : UP : Concepts DOWN : Detailed designs SIDEWAYS : Alternatives Explore project context : UP : Bigger chunks DOWN : Smaller details SIDEWAYS : Related items KNOWLEDGE
    23. 23. Proposed Process (Corporate Memory) REUSE Find reusable item Explore evolution history : UP : Concepts DOWN : Detailed designs SIDEWAYS : Alternatives Explore project context : UP : Bigger chunks DOWN : Smaller details SIDEWAYS : Related items KNOWLEDGE
    24. 24. Overview Metaphor : Corporate Map <ul><li>This is a good idea because </li></ul>
    25. 25. Overview Metaphor : Corporate Map <ul><li>This is a good idea because maps tell you where to go </li></ul>
    26. 26. <ul><li>Size  “amount of knowledge” </li></ul>Coloured Treemap (Shneiderman 2001) <ul><li>Colour  relevance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Text analysis </li></ul></ul>
    27. 27. Project Context Explorer Metaphor : Fisheye Lens <ul><li>This is a good idea because it balances local detail with global context </li></ul>
    28. 28. CoMem Project Context Explorer Degree of Interest Level of Granularity
    29. 29. Evolution History Explorer Metaphor : Storytelling <ul><li>This is a good idea because </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This is how expertise is transferred in practice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Huge amount of knowledge communicated in few words, images... </li></ul></ul>I called MCC and got information for items 1&2.  For item 3, MCC requires top of the supporting steel frame/bottom of cooling tower unit to be 3 to 4 feet above the roof.  Using this as guideline, we will put T/Stl for our supporting From phone conversation with Erich Swett on July 25, 2000 Cooling tower weight is 30,000 lbs per unit.  there may be one or two units. A screen will occur all around the tower.  To support this screen, the four columns at the North west of the central plant will be extended. the dimensions of the cooling tower  is, 14' wide (NW to SE) by 22' I have a follow up comment.  You said that you the top of steel elevation at the cooling towers will be 22'-2 1/2&quot;.  It second glance it looks like this dimension should be the bottom of steel elevation.
    30. 30. CoMem Evolution History Explorer
    31. 31. Summary of CoMem Overview Project context explorer Evolution history explorer
    32. 32. CoMem Evaluation <ul><li>Usability evaluation: user tests with 20 subjects </li></ul>Real Data Testbed Medium corporate memory consisting of 10 projects, 2000 items <ul><li>Relevance measure evaluation </li></ul>
    33. 33. <ul><li>Simple Vector Model Techniques </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Binary Weights </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TF-IDF Weights </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Log-Entropy Weights </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Context-sensitive Techniques </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Concatenation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tree Isomorphism Method </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Findings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Good performance is possible with sparse semantic data / annotations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More complicated measures not necessarily better </li></ul></ul>Summary of Relevance Measure Evaluation Methods Tried
    34. 34. Usability Evaluation Method
    35. 35. CoMem vs. Traditional Tools Hit List Outline Tree CoMem
    36. 36. Results Support Hypothesis
    37. 37. Design Scoreboard Project <ul><li>Funded by the EPSRC/AHRC </li></ul><ul><li>Led by Dr James Moultrie, Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing </li></ul><ul><li>How does the UK perform nationally in design? National Design Scoreboard. </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.designscoreboard.org.uk/ </li></ul>
    38. 38. Other Research Directions <ul><li>Briefing and managing client’s requirements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Electronic management of information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Human factors – stakeholder engagement in hospitals </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Retrieval of design documents </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Importance of context in search engines </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Design pedagogy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Link to AI </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sports analogy – using design projects </li></ul></ul>
    39. 39. Summary <ul><li>First Principles </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Design is hard to define but is important </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cambridge Project : Design in context of education and information technology </li></ul><ul><li>Stanford Project: Design content must be studied in context in order to be understood and used/reused </li></ul><ul><li>Future projects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>National importance of design </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Design in context of briefing and requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Design pedagogy; design is hard to teach </li></ul></ul>

    ×